This would change other things: for example, Chicago would control all of Illinois's representatives, as opposed to however many they get by districting.

You're right, and we'd have to decide if we wanted that to happen or not (Chicago already decides Senators for the exact same reason). If we ever decided to elect by plurality, it would likely come with myriad adjustments to our government's struc, from the functioning and power of the executive to the operation and autonomy of our central bank to the role of the judiciary. And we'd probably have to "redistrict" somehow. It would probably make sense to do so anyway. Our territorial state boundaries were more relevant when political affiliation was more regional than urban/rural.

Clonod, while Chicago may have an increased influence, I don't think they'd be able to find enough candidates to make a monopoly out of the state. There are 19 seats up for grabs. Peoria and Carbondale and Springfield are going to get some action, as well as rural Illinois. I mean, after Chicago, most of Illinois is rural. That's basically going to be one big voting block if someone's farmer-friendly.

And how much would it truly matter where in the state the candidate came from anymore? Remember, we're getting rid of districts. The Representative is no longer loyal to the little computer-drawn strip of land gerrymandered to be 90% loyal to him. He's got the entire state to answer to. A state which may or may not be happy with him outside of that computer-generated strip of land.

Gosling:And how much would it truly matter where in the state the candidate came from anymore? Remember, we're getting rid of districts. The Representative is no longer loyal to the little computer-drawn strip of land gerrymandered to be 90% loyal to him. He's got the entire state to answer to. A state which may or may not be happy with him outside of that computer-generated strip of land.

If only it were an honest computer generated strip of land. Those districts might as well be hand drawn by whatever political party owns the govener of that state in order to do everything possible to keep the party in charge. Neither party is about to let such a powerful tool out of their grasp unless we make them. The exception being (I think) Ohio, that does have a neutral commission that draws up rational districts. Oddly enough Ohio has some of the most competitive Congressional races in the country.

I know, Chicago wouldn't have complete control. I was just alluding to and more or less agreeing with the comment that the rurals may rightly feel marginalized in such a system in a state like Illinois.

Lets say, for arguments sake, that rural Illinois comprises 30% of the states population (may be more or less, number isnt relevant) Right now, with territorially divided individual districts, they wield roughly 30% of the political power in that state, as far as the HoR is concerned. And they essentially get to ensure that their reps, GOP or Dem, will have their rurally oriented interests in mind.

In a plural system, that wouldn't be the case. If they wanted to ensure that 30% of the Illinois reps had general "rural" interests in mind, whatever they may be (farm sudsidies, christian family values, who knows, whatever issues seem to consensus geographically), they would need to vote as a consensus in order to let this happen. It would work, but the problem is their political freedom is then limited, and they get no diversity of candidates or parties to choose from. The most likely scenario is a lot of people defect to the Chicago-oriented candidates for other issues and reasons, and as a result the combined political power of the region is significantly reduded.

If they are going to keep this thread around and show the last seven days of comments, shouldn't they make it so it shows up in a consistent spot? The could pick the very bottom of the current day's political comments, for example, so it would show up in the same spot every day.

The rural candidates, I think, would be fewer in number, but as a result, the rural candidates could easily pile up the points for those candidates, resulting in their seeding. Meanwhile, while Chicago has many more points to allocate, there would be more Chicago candidates getting that idea and thinking 'Oh, this'll be easy'. And then they all have to fight each other for those points, and a lot are going to get filtered out and passed by the rurals.

I wasn't responding to your system. I was referring to the theoretical implementation of a pluaralistic democracy as seen elsewhere in the world.

To respond to your comments, however, I think the problem is still that you're relying on the rural voters to act as a consolidated bloc in order for them to retain the same amount of power, and that's a) unrealistic and b) limiting to their political freedom. They would have to all decide, together, not to form their own political parties (highly unlikley, as they differ on so many issues from the urbans) and to rather choose to infuence through an infiltration of statewide parties. It would be a great straegy if you could ensure a high level of cooperation. And yet you assume that they reap this disadvantage through the Chicago political machine being equally disorganized and disparate.

Anyone know of a good piece on Sumptuary Taxes? I'm looking for pros/cons and analysis of their regressive nature as it pertains to alcohol, tobacco. Google not helpin much. Difficulty: No PhD in Econ.

No, that's not quite what I was thinking of, Clonod. What I figured is this:

*Disproportionately large numbers of Chicagoland candidates see easy seats because they think they can take the rural seats.*Chicago voters wind up seeing huge numbers of locals. Lots of points get siphoned off by fringe candidates, leaving fewer for the serious candidates.*Rural candidates are slightly disheartened, so fewer of them run.*Rural voters, with fewer local options, consolidate by default. There's little active consolidation done- they simply see fewer locals than Chicago.

This does not, however, take into account the rock-star candidates who get statewide support no matter where they come from (see also: Obama).

The problem with that is, fringe candidates don't do that in primaries. The electorate, as well as comapign tactics, will repsond to this system. People won't vote for random fringe names they don't now, at least not appreciably. They'll vote for the primary candidates that matter. Wasting your vote will still be something people don't want to do.

Also, consolidation by default won't necessarily happen, in fact it most likely won't happen. While the rural people may be bound by certain interests that are protected in the current system, those issues arent necessarily the most important to each individual voter.

You're making some pretty big assumptions in trying to sell a radical new form of democracy.

EdNortonsTwin:When was the last time the beter looking candidate lost a Presential election?

Well, I'll start looking through pictures, if you can define for me what is 'better looking'. Personally I think the President really does look pretty monkeylike. While I would hesitate to say that Kerry looks better than him, I think gore did.

I'm Part of the Labor Party in Australia, the liberal party... not John Howard's LIBERAL party, they are the conseritives in Aus, I was really miffed at our Prime Minister bashing Ohbama on the weekend. hell, i would prefer to see an Obhama led government then clinton.and definitly not the republicans.

and honestly, How can a former mayor of New York, even THINK of winning a US federal election? Also, the election would be pretty interesting if nadar also stands.

However saying all that. having voluntry voting where only half the population even bothers to turn up and vote is a bad thing. Am looking forward to Austrlia's federal election this year. Rudd and Gilard FTW.

"Impeach Cheney first for Plamegate, install a Democrat-approved Veep, and the Bush stands alone. I wonder how he'd retaliate?"

Interesting question. There are too many variables to your scenario to get the particulars correct, but the answer would be that regardless of what he attempts to do, he will first lie about it and then proceed to screw it up. Then he will lie about screwing it up.